189. On June 20, 2004, plaintiff Eveland published
P56, a letter to the editor of the York Sunday News. She wrote
the letter in response to P46, an article from the York Daily
Record dated June 9, 2004. 6:96-98 (Eveland). In her letter,
Eveland wrote:

In partnership with family and community to educate students,
we emphasize sound, basic skills and nurture the diverse needs of
our students as they strive to become lifelong learners and
contributing members of our global society. What a slap in the
face to many of the parents and taxpayers of the Dover area. How
sad that a member of our own school board would be so
closed-minded and not want to carry on the mission of Dover
schools. His ignorance will not only hold back children attending
Dover area schools, but also reinforce other communities' views
that Dover is a backwards, close-minded community. If it was
simply a matter of selecting a text that gives two contradicting
scientific theories equal time, that would be an entirely
different matter, but it's not. Creationism is religion, plain
and simple. Mr. Buckingham's comments offend me, not because they
are religious in nature, but because it is my duty to teach my
children about religion as I see fit, not the Dover Area School
District during a biology class.

190. In response, board member Geesey published
the following letter, P60, in the June 27, 2004
York Daily Record:

This letter is in regard to the comments made by Beth Eveland
from York Township in the June 20 York Sunday News. I assure you
that the Dover Area School Board is not going against its mission
statement. In fact, if you read the statement, it says to educate
our students so that they can be contributing members of society.
I do not believe in teaching revisionist history. Our country was
founded on Christian beliefs and principles. We are not looking
for a book that is teaching students that this is a wrong thing
or a right thing. It is just a fact. All we are trying to
accomplish with this task is to choose a biology book that
teaches the most prevalent theories.

The definition of `theory' is merely a speculative or an ideal
circumstance. To present only one theory or to give one option
would be directly contradicting our mission statement. You can
teach creationism without it being Christianity. It can be
presented as a higher power. That is where another part of
Dover's mission statement comes into play. That part would be in
partnership with family and community. You as a parent can teach
your child your family's ideology.

191. Sometime before late July 2004, Buckingham
contacted Thomas More Law Center ("TMLC") and spoke with Richard
Thompson. 30:10-12 (Buckingham). Buckingham contacted TMLC for
the purpose of seeking legal advice and never received anything
but legal advice; on that basis defendants' counsel asserted
privilege over all communications between Buckingham and TMLC.
30:17-18.

192. In one of the early conversations between
Buckingham and TMLC, Thompson told Buckingham that TMLC would
represent the Board if it needed legal assistance and Buckingham
accepted on behalf of the Board, although later after the
litigation commenced the Board formally engaged TMLC as its
counsel. 30:15-16.

193. Buckingham and the Board first learned of the
creationist textbook Of Pandas and People from Richard Thompson
sometime before late July 2004. 29:107-08; 30:10-12
(Buckingham).

194. Bonsell confirmed in testimony that the
passage on pages 99 to 100 of Pandas ("Intelligent design means
that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent
agency, with their distinctive features already intact, fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.") is
very similar to one aspect of creationism. 33:64. A young earth
creationist himself, Bonsell also confirmed in testimony that a
passage from Pandas that questions the notion of common descent,
which is consistent with his personal religious belief. 33:54-56,
66-67.

195. In July 2004, the teachers discovered that
there was a 2004 edition of Biology available. 12:127 (J.
Miller); 13:30 (Spahr). The Board at its meeting on July 12, 2004
agreed to defer consideration of purchasing a new textbook until
it could review this textbook. 12:127 (J. Miller).

196. That same month, Spahr, Miller, and Baksa met
to review the 2004 edition of Biology. 12:127 (J. Miller).
Together they read the sections on evolution, compared them to
the same sections in the 2002 edition, and created P150, a
document showing the differences between the two editions with
respect to evolution. 12:127-29 (J. Miller).

197. The Board met on Monday, August 2, 2004. One
of the items on the agenda for the meeting was approval of the
purchase of the 2004 edition of Biology. 8:64 (J. Brown).

198. A few days prior to the August 2, 2004
meeting, Casey Brown received a call from Assistant
Superintendent Baksa, who told her that Buckingham had a book
called Of Pandas and People that he recommended the school
district purchase as a supplemental textbook. 7:52-53 (C. Brown);
8:64 (J. Brown).

199. Jeff Brown went to Harkins' home to pick up a
copy of Pandas. 8:65. She told him that she wanted the school
district to purchase the book. 8:66. He said: "Sheila, you don't
even want to buy the books that we're supposed to buy, why do you
want to buy this book that we don't even need and the state is
not requiring us to buy." 8:66 (J. Brown). She told him that
"this book was such an eye opening thing about what's wrong with
evolution and so on and so forth." 8:67. Brown responded that
"with all the statements that Bill has made that have been in the
press and have actually gone wire service, I said, if we even
touch the subject we're going to end up in court. And she
remained adamant." 8:67.

200. At the board meeting four days later,
Buckingham opposed the purchase of Biology, which was recommended
by the faculty and administration unless the Board also approved
the purchase of Pandas as a companion text. Only eight members of
the Board were present on August 2, 2004 (Cleaver was in Florida)
and the initial vote to approve the purchase of Pandas failed to
pass on a four to four vote, with Buckingham, Harkins, Geesey,
and Yingling voting against it. 8:68 (J. Brown); 29:105-06
(Buckingham); P67.

201. Buckingham stated that he had five votes in
favor of purchasing Pandas, and that if the Board approved the
purchase of Pandas, he would release his votes to also approve
the purchase of Biology. 8:68-69 (J. Brown). Yingling then
changed her vote, and the motion to approve the purchase of
Biology passed. P67; 8:69. At trial, Buckingham admitted that at
the meeting he said "if he didn't get his book, the district
would not get the biology book." 29:106 (Buckingham).

202. This email is additional evidence that the
Board knew that intelligent design is a form of creationism.

203. On August 26, 2004, the Board Solicitor sent
an email to Superintendent Nilsen that stated, among other
things, the following:

Today, I talked to Richard Thompson, President and Chief
Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center. . . . They refer to the
creationism issue as "intelligent design". . . . They have
background knowledge and have talked to school boards in West
Virginia and Michigan about possible litigation. However, nothing
has come about in either state. This suggests to me that no one
is adopting the textbook because, if they were, one can safely
assume there would have been a legal challenge by someone
somewhere. . . . I know that we have given an opinion on this
matter on more than one occasion. I guess my main concern at the
moment, is that even if use of the text is purely voluntary, this
may still make it very difficult to win a case. I say this
because one of the common themes in some of the US Supreme Court
decision, especially dealing with silent meditation, is that even
though something is voluntary, it still causes a problem because
the practice, whatever it may be, was initiated for religious
reasons. One of the best examples comes out of the silent
meditation cases in Alabama which the court struck down because
the record showed that the statute in question was enacted for
religious reasons. My concern for Dover is that in the last
several years there has been a lot of discussion, news print,
etc. for putting religion back in the schools. In my mind this
would add weight to a lawsuit seeking to enjoin whatever the
practice might be.

P70 (emphasis added).

204. Nilsen shared this email with everyone
present at the Board Curriculum Committee meeting on August 30,
2004, including Buckingham, Bonsell, and Harkins. 25:135-36
(Nilsen).

205. Nilsen and Baksa both admitted that they knew
the email referred to the news reports of the June 2004 board
meetings. 25:135-36, 138-39 (Nilsen); 35:105-06, 111-12
(Baksa).

206. This email is additional evidence that the
Board knew that intelligent design is a form of creationism.

207. The Board Curriculum Committee met on August
30, 2004 with Spahr, Miller, Nilsen, Baksa, Bonsell, Buckingham,
Harkins, and Casey Brown. 12:133-34 (J. Miller). The principal
subject discussed at the meeting was Of Pandas and People and how
it would be used in the classroom. 12:134 (J. Miller). Spahr
expressed concern that the textbook taught intelligent design and
that intelligent design amounted to creationism. 12:135 (J.
Miller). Buckingham wanted Pandas used in the classroom as a
comparison text side by side with the standard biology textbook.
29:104-05 (Buckingham). The teachers strongly opposed using
Pandas as a companion text. 29:111 (Buckingham). As a compromise
to the Board, however, the teachers agreed that Pandas could be
placed in the classroom as a reference text. 12:136 (J. Miller);
13:88 (Spahr). They thought that if they compromised with the
Board, "maybe this will go away again." 12:136 (J. Miller). There
was no discussion at the meeting about any change to the
curriculum. 12:136 (J. Miller); 13:88 (Spahr).

208. Although the teachers agreed to accept Pandas
as a reference text in the classrooms, they clearly did so only
as a compromise in consideration for receiving Biology.
35:119-120 (Baksa). Baksa testified that no one could construe
the teachers as having supported Pandas in any way, either as a
reference text or otherwise. 35:120.

209. Baksa testified on direct examination that
during this time period he did research on Pandas and intelligent
design. Among other things, he directed his secretary to go to
the webpage from the Institute for Creation Research to get
information about Pandas. 35:113-14 (Baksa); D35. That webpage
states that Pandas "contains interpretations of classic evidences
in harmony with the creation model." 35:114-15 (Baksa). He was
asked "that was information you were aware of as you researched
Pandas?" And he answered "yes." 35:115 (Baksa). Baksa then
contradicted this testimony on re-direct and stated that he had
never read the webpage. 36:45 (Baksa). This contradiction came
after Baksa conferred with his counsel the previous evening ­
while still subject to cross examination ­ about the
testimony he would give.

210. The October 4, 2004 board meeting agenda
noted that Superintendent Nilsen had accepted a donation of 60
copies of Pandas. P78 at 9. There is no evidence that Bonsell or
Buckingham or anyone else with knowledge of that donation
disclosed the source of the donation at any time until it came
out in litigation.

211. At a board meeting in November 2004, former
board member Larry Snook asked about the source of the donation
of Pandas. 30:47 (Buckingham); 33:30 (Bonsell). Neither Bonsell,
Buckingham, or anyone else provided any information about the
source of the donation. 30:47-48 (Buckingham); 33:30-31
(Bonsell).

212. At their depositions on January 3, 2005,
which were taken pursuant to Court Order so that plaintiffs could
decide whether to seek a temporary restraining order, plaintiffs'
counsel asked both Buckingham and Bonsell about the source of the
donation of Pandas. 30:50-56 (Buckingham); 33:31-35 (Bonsell).
Neither Buckingham nor Bonsell provided any information about
Buckingham's involvement in the donation or about a collection he
took at his church. 30:50-56 (Buckingham); 33:31-35
(Bonsell).

213. In fact, Buckingham made a plea for donations
to purchase Pandas at his church, the Harmony Grove Community
Church, on a Sunday before services. 30:38-40 (Buckingham). And
the people at his church donated $850. 30:40.

214. P80 is a check made out to Donald Bonsell
drawn on Buckingham's account, jointly held with his wife in the
amount of $850 with the notation Of Pandas and People. 30:46-47.
Donald Bonsell is Alan Bonsell's father. 30:47. Buckingham gave
the check to Alan Bonsell to give to his father. 30:47. Alan
Bonsell admitted that Buckingham gave him a check for the purpose
of buying the books. 33:29-30 (Bonsell).

215. Alan Bonsell gave the money to Donald
Bonsell, who purchased the books. 33:131-32 (Bonsell).

216. Bertha Spahr received the shipment of books,
unpacked the box, and discovered P144, a catalogue from the
company that sold the books. 13:94 (Spahr). The catalogue lists
Pandas under "Creation Science." 13:94-95 (Spahr); P144 at
29.

217. Bonsell testified that his father served as
the conduit for the funds from Buckingham's church because: "He
agreed to ­ he said that he would take it, I guess, off the
table or whatever, because of seeing what was going on, and with
Mrs. Callahan complaining at the Board meeting not using funds or
whatever." 33:129 (Bonsell). In other words, they were trying to
hide the source of the funds.

218. Clearly, Buckingham and Bonsell tried to hide
the source of the donations because they knew that it showed, at
the very least, that they had taken extraordinary measures to
ensure that students received a creationist alternative to
Darwin's theory of evolution. As discussed infra at ¶ 271,
both Buckingham and Bonsell failed to tell the truth about the
subject of their depositions on January 3, 2005, which provides
further compelling evidence that these two board members sought
to conceal their blatantly religious purpose.

219. In September 2004, acting on the instructions
of the Board, Baksa prepared a change to the biology curriculum,
which stated: "Students will be made aware of gaps in Darwin's
theory and of other theories of evolution." P73; 35:122 (Baksa).
The draft curriculum change listed no reference text. P73. Baksa
initiated these changes on assignment from the Board. 35:123-24
(Baksa). There is no evidence in the record that the Board asked
him to initiate the changes to improve science education in the
Dover schools. The teachers clearly did not initiate these
changes. 35:123. As with the Pandas donation, the teachers
reluctantly acquiesced to a request initiated by the Board.
35:119 (Baksa).

220. On October 7, 2004, the Board Curriculum
Committee met to discuss changing the biology curriculum. 35:124
(Baksa). The science teachers were not invited. 35:124 (Baksa).
Casey Brown had an appointment with an eye surgeon and could not
make the meeting, leaving Buckingham, Bonsell, and Harkins as the
only board members present with Baksa. At the meeting, the
participants discussed P81, a document showing various positions
regarding the proposed curriculum change. 35:125 (Baksa); 29:113
(Buckingham). P82 is the same document, but with Bonsell's
handwritten change to one of the alternatives. 29:113
(Buckingham).

221. Ultimately, the Board Curriculum Committee
adopted Bonsell's alternative, with the handwritten change:
"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory
and of other theories of evolution, including but not limited to
intelligent design." P82; 35:125 (Baksa). The Board Curriculum
Committee's proposed change also called for Pandas to be cited as
a reference text. P82. Bonsell, Buckingham, and Harkins reached
agreement on the curriculum change in a matter of minutes. 35:125
(Baksa).

222. As of October 7, 2005, Buckingham thought all
the board members except the Browns would support the proposed
curriculum change. 29:113-17 (Buckingham). Only later did he
learn that Wenrich did not support the change because of his
concern that the Board disregarded the expertise and opinions of
the science teachers. 29:125-27 (Buckingham).

223. The curriculum change proposed by the Board
Curriculum Committee along with the change proposed by
administration and accepted by the science faculty, were
circulated to the full Board by memoranda dated October 13, 2004.
P84A; P84B.

226. In passing the resolution, the Board deviated
from its regular practice in important respects.

(a) Typically, the Board addressed curriculum
changes an entire year in advance of implementation. 7:78-79 (C.
Brown). The change to the biology curriculum was brought up
during the 2004-05 school year to be effective that year: "The
normal procedures were not followed at all in making this
change." 7:79 (C. Brown).

(b) Standard board practice called for two
meetings a month, a planning meeting followed by an action
meeting, with items for consideration to be listed on the agenda
for discussion at the planning meeting before listing them for
resolution on the agenda at the action meeting later in the
month. 7:24-25 (C. Brown). The change to the biology curriculum
was placed on the Board's agenda for the first time during an
action meeting; a number of witnesses recognized this as
irregular. 26:11 (Nilsen); 4:3-5 (B. Callahan); 7:77-78 (C.
Brown); 29:118 (Buckingham).

(c) Board practice also called for the District
Curriculum Committee to meet to discuss the change. 7:72-73 (C.
Brown). Superintendent Nilsen suggested that the District
Curriculum Committee meet to discuss the proposed change, but the
Board overruled that suggestion. 7:73 (C. Brown); 26:8-10
(Nilsen). This represented a deviation from the Board's standard
practice. 25:73-76, 26:8-10 (Nilsen); 7:10-11 (C. Brown); 29:124
(Buckingham). The administration did send the proposed change to
the District Curriculum Committee, and received feedback from two
members. P151; D67; 7:80-82 (C. Brown); 35:7-8 (Baksa); P151;
D67. One opposed the change and the other wanted the District
Curriculum Committee to meet to discuss the proposed change.
P151. There is no evidence that the Board acted on either
suggestion.

(d) The teachers were not included in the process
of drafting the language adopted by the Board Curriculum
Committee; the Board chose not to follow the advice of their only
science-education resource. 7:82-83 (C. Brown); 30:31-32
(Buckingham).

227. Witnesses for defendants testified that the
rush to bring the curriculum change to a vote occurred because
the issue had been debated for the past six months, and the Board
was about to lose two board members, Noel Wenrich and Jane
Cleaver, who had been a part of those discussions. 26:10-12
(Nilsen); 33:113-14 (Bonsell). Their record contains no evidence
of any public board meetings where the Board discussed
intelligent design, but the evidence shows that the Board did
discuss creationism within that six month period. See supra at
¶¶ 170-77. Moreover, Wenrich was opposed to the
expedited vote, as reflected in his parliamentary measures to
have the vote delayed until the community could properly debate
the issue, and consider the science teachers' position. 29:125-28
(Buckingham). In reality, Buckingham wanted the Board to vote on
the resolution on October 18 because he thought he had all the
votes needed to pass the resolution adopted at the October 7
meeting of the Board Curriculum Committee. 29:113-16
(Buckingham).

228. On October 18, prior to the board meeting,
the science teachers learned that the Board intended to vote for
the Board Curriculum Committee's proposed change, rather than the
one submitted by the administration, to which the teachers had
acquiesced. 7:82-83 (C. Brown); 35:12-14, 125 (Baksa). The
teachers and administration prepared a third proposal, which
included the text "Origins of Life is Not Taught," and added
Pandas as a reference text in the curriculum guide. D68. This
latest proposal was not preferred by the teachers over the first
proposal, or over having no change at all, but rather as a last
effort to avoid the Board Curriculum Committee's proposal, which
called for presentation of intelligent design. 13:58-59 (J.
Miller).

229. At the October 18, 2004 meeting, science
teachers Spahr and Miller, and other members of the public spoke
up against the curriculum change. 13: 41-42 (J. Miller); 13:88-93
(Spahr). In her statement to the Board, Spahr made clear that the
teachers' agreement to point out "flaws/problems with Darwin's
theory," not to teach origins of life, and have Pandas available
as a reference text, were all compromises with the Board
Curriculum Committee, after what she described as "a long and
tiresome process." 13:91-92 (Spahr). She also stated that the
change was being railroaded through without input from the
teachers or the District Curriculum Committee. 13:91-93. Neither
Superintendent Nilsen nor Assistant Superintendent Baksa, nor any
board member spoke up in disagreement with this description of
events by the teachers. 35:126 (Baksa).

230. Baksa testified that the teachers did not
support Pandas in any way. The teachers' first preference would
have been not to have Pandas at all, but they made compromises to
insure the purchase of the biology book. 35:119-20 (Baksa).

231. Any suggestion that the teachers supported
any part of the curriculum change must be soundly rejected.
35:20-21 (Baksa). The evidence demonstrates that any "agreement"
on the part of the teachers was done to compromise with board
members who were trying to foist religion into the curriculum,
and, in part, as quid pro quo for approval of a biology book that
should have been provided as a matter of course. 35:119-20, 123
(Baksa).

232. At the October 18 meeting, Spahr warned that
intelligent design amounted to creationism and could not be
taught legally. 24:102 (Nilsen); 35:14-15 (Baksa).

233. During the October 18, 2004 meeting, the
following language was added to the Board Curriculum Committee's
recommended curriculum change: "Note: Origins of Life is Not
Taught." From the Board's perspective, this change made it
district policy that teachers were not permitted to teach major
aspects of evolution, including macroevolution, speciation, and
common ancestry, including that humans share common ancestors
with other living creatures. 29:121-23 (Buckingham); Buckingham
Dep. (3/31/05) at 71, 74; Bonsell Dep. (4/13/05) at 67-69.

234. The 6-3 vote to approve the curriculum change
occurred without any discussion by the Board about intelligent
design or how presenting it to students would improve science
education. 26:21 (Nilsen); 35:127-28 (Baksa); 8:36 (C. Brown);
8:76; 12:139-40 (J. Miller); 13:102 (Spahr); 32:25-26, 40; 30:23-
25 (Buckingham); 31:182-83 (Geesey); 34:124-26 (Harkins). No
justification was offered by any board member for the change in
the curriculum when it was adopted at the October 18, 2004, board
meeting. 6:105-06 (Eveland); 8:36 (C. Brown); 8:76 (J. Brown);
P88.

235. Board members acknowledged that they did not
have sufficient background in science to evaluate intelligent
design themselves ­ 31:175 (Geesey); 32:50 (Cleaver);
34:117-18 (Harkins) ­ and most of them testified candidly
that they did not understand the substance of the curriculum
change that was adopted on October 18, 2004. 31:181-82 (Geesey);
32:49-50 (Cleaver); 34:124-25 (Harkins).

236. Instead, other board members adopted the
position of Bonsell and Buckingham for their information about
intelligent design and their decision to incorporate it as part
of the high school biology curriculum. 31:154-68 (Geesey).

237. They did so in the face of strenuous
opposition from the district's high school teachers. 31:186-90
(Geesey); 35:127-28 (Baksa).

238. The Board never heard from any persons or
organization with scientific expertise about the change to the
curriculum, except the district's science teachers, who opposed
the change. 29:109 (Buckingham). The only outside organizations
the Board consulted prior to the vote were the Discovery
Institute and TMLC, and they only consulted those organizations
for legal advice, not information about science education.
33:111-12 (Bonsell); 29:130, 137-43, 30:10-14 (Buckingham). The
Board received no materials, other than Pandas, to assist them in
making their vote. 35:127-28 (Baksa); 8:36-37 (C. Brown);
33:112-14 (Bonsell).

239. No one on the Board or in the administration
ever contacted the National Academy of Sciences, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science
Teachers' Association, the National Association of Biology
Teachers, or any other organization for information about
intelligent design or science education. 33:113 (Bonsell);
30:24-27 (Buckingham). All of these organizations have
information about teaching evolution readily available on the
Internet and they include statements opposing the teaching of
intelligent design. 14:74-99 (Alters).

240. Board members who voted for the curriculum
change that testified at trial admitted they had no grasp of the
concept of intelligent design. Cleaver testified that she did not
understand the concept of intelligent design. 32:49-50
(Cleaver)5. Geesey testified that she did not understand the
substance of the curriculum change. 31:181-82 (Geesey); 29:11-12
(Buckingham); Buckingham Dep. (1/3/05) at 59-61; 34:48-49
(Harkins); 33:112-113 (Bonsell); 26:21 (Nilsen). Buckingham
admitted that he had no basis to know whether intelligent design
amounted to good science. 30:32-33. As of the time of his first
deposition, two and a half months after the policy was voted in.
Nilsen's entire understanding of intelligent design was that
"evolution has a design." 26:49-50.

241. In voting for the curriculum change, Geesey
deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham. 31:154-55, 161-62,
168, 184-87, 190 (Geesey). Cleaver voted for the change despite
the objections of the teachers based on assurances from Bonsell.
32:23-25 (Cleaver). She did not know anything about Pandas except
that Bertha Spahr had said it was not a good science book and
should not be used in high school. 32:45-46 (Cleaver).

243. Both Casey Brown and Jeff Brown resigned at
the conclusion of the October 18, 2004 board meeting. In her
resignation speech, Casey Brown stated:

There has been a slow but steady marginalization of some board
members. Our opinions are no longer valued or listened to. Our
contributions have been minimized or not acknowledged at all. A
measure of that is the fact that I myself have been twice asked
within the past year if I was `born again.' No one has, nor
should have the right, to ask that of a fellow board member. An
individual's religious beliefs should have no impact on his or
her ability to serve as a school board director, nor should a
person's beliefs be used as a yardstick to measure the value of
that service. However, it has become increasingly evident that is
the direction the board has now chosen to go, holding a certain
religious belief is of paramount importance.

244. At the next meeting, board member Noel
Wenrich resigned and stated:

I was referred to as unpatriotic, and my religious beliefs
were questioned. I served in the U.S. Army for 11 years and six
years on this board. Seventeen years of my life have been devoted
to public service, and my religion is personal. It's between me,
God, and my pastor.

245. After the curriculum was changed, Assistant
Superintendent Baksa was tasked with preparing a statement to be
read to students before the evolution unit in biology. His first
draft of the statement described Darwin's theory of evolution as
the "dominant scientific theory." The Board removed this language
from the final version. D91; (36:22-24). Baksa's draft also
stated that "there are gaps in Darwin's theory for which there is
yet no evidence." D91; (36:26-28). The Board edited out the word
"yet" so that the statement reads "there are gaps in Darwin's
theory for which there is no evidence." 36:26-28 (Baksa).

246. Baksa instructed Jennifer Miller to review
the statement. She suggested that language be added that stated
there is a "significant amount of evidence" supporting Darwin's
theory. D91. Baksa understood this to be an accurate statement
about the theory of evolution, but edited it out because, based
on the Board's treatment of his draft, he understood the Board
would not approve this language. 36:24-26 (Baksa).

247. Baksa testified that the final version of the
statement communicated a very different message about the theory
of evolution than the language he and Miller suggested.
(36:27).

248. The final version of the statement prepared
by defendants to be read to students in 9th grade biology class,
stated:

The state standards require students to learn about Darwin's
Theory of Evolution and to eventually take a standardized test of
which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory,
it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The
Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is
no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation
that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is
an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's
view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for
students to see if they would like to explore this view in an
effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design
actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are
encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion
of the Origins of Life up to individual students and their
families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction
focuses on the standards and preparing students to be successful
on standards-based assessments.

P124.

249. On January 6, 2005, the teachers sent a memo
to the Board by which they requested the Board release them from
any obligation to read the statement. 36:97 (Linker). The memo
states the teachers belief that "reading the statement violates
our responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in
the Code of Professional Practice." 36:97 The teachers' memo also
states that "Central to teaching act and our ethical obligation
is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth . . . the public
educator may not knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject
matter and curriculum." 36:98. The memo concludes with the
statement "To refer the students to Of Pandas and People, as if
it is a scientific resource, breaches my ethical obligation to
provide them with scientific knowledge that that is supported by
recognized proof or theory." P121.

250. The defendants read the statement to ninth
graders at Dover high school in January 2005. 35:43 (Baksa). The
teachers requested not to read the statement because it violated
their professional ethics. 25:56-57 (Nilsen); P121. In their
place, administrators of the DASD read the statement. 35:38
(Baksa).

251. The administrators read the statement again
in June 2005. 35:42 (Baksa); P131. By that time, the defendants
had modified the statement to refer to other, unnamed books in
the library that relate to intelligent design. P131. Pandas
remains the only book identified by name in the statement. 35:40,
42 (Baksa). The defendants offered no evidence about where the
other books can be found in the library, including whether they
are placed near Pandas. 35:42-43 (Baksa).

252. Evolution is the only theory taught in Dover
science classes for which students are told it is a "theory not a
fact," or that there are "gaps and problems." 36:30-32 (Baksa);
35:120 (Baksa). No board member or administrator explained why
evolution was singled out in this manner. 13:102 (Spahr).

253. In February, 2005, the Board published
P127,
a newsletter to the entire Dover community, which was prepared in
conjunction with TMLC.

254. Typically, the Board sent out a newsletter to
the Dover area community approximately four times a year.
15:98-99 (C. Sneath). In February 2005, the Board unanimously
voted to mail a specialized newsletter (P127) to the community.
15:136; P821. Although formatted like a typical district
newsletter, it amounts to an aggressive advocacy piece
denigrating the scientific theory of evolution and advocating
intelligent design.

(a) As the very first question under "Frequently
Asked Questions" the newsletter demeans the Plaintiffs for
protecting their Constitutional rights. "A small minority of
parents have objected to the recent curriculum change by arguing
that the Board has acted to impose its own religious beliefs on
students." P127 at 1.

(b) It mentions religion in the second Frequently
Asked Questions, as follows: Students are told of the theory of
Intelligent Design (ID). Isn't ID simply religion in disguise." Id.

(c) It suggests that opponents of the biology
curriculum change are responsible for spreading misinformation.
"Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been spread
regarding this policy." Id.

(d) It suggests that scientists engage in trickery
and doublespeak about the theory of evolution. "The word
evolution has several meanings, and those supporting Darwin's
theory of evolution use that confusion in definition to their
advantage." Id.

(e) It makes the grandiose claim that intelligent
design is a scientific theory on a par with evolution and other
scientific theories. "The theory of intelligent design (ID) is a
scientific theory that differs from Darwin's view, and is
endorsed by a growing number of credible scientists." Id. at
2.

(f) It denigrates evolution in a way and makes
claims that have never been advanced much less proven in the
scientific community. "In simple terms, on a molecular level,
scientists have discovered a purposeful arrangement of parts,
which cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. In fact, since the
1950s, advances in molecular biology and chemistry have shown us
that living cells, the fundamental units of life processes,
cannot be explained by chance." Id.

(g) It suggests that evolution has atheistic
implications. "Some have said that before Darwin, `we thought a
benevolent God had created us. Biology took away or status as
made in the image of God'...or `Darwinism made it possible to be
an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'" Id.

(h) It takes the obligatory cheap shot at the
ACLU. "As the elected representatives of the citizens of Dover,
the Board was determined to act in the best interest of students,
despite threats from the ACLU." Id.

(i) It all but admits that intelligent design is
religious. It quotes Anthony Flew, described as a "world famous
atheist who now believes in intelligent design," as follows: "My
whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates:
Follow the evidence where it leads." Id.

255. In addition, on April 23, 2005, at the
request of the school board, Michael Behe made a presentation on
intelligent design to Dover citizens. Joint Stipulations of Fact
¶11.

256. Plaintiffs described the harm caused by the
Board's policy on their children, their families, and themselves
in consistent, but uniquely personal ways. They believe that
intelligent design is an inherently religious concept and that
its inclusion in the district's science curriculum interferes
with their rights to teach their children about religion.
3:118-119 (Kitzmiller): 4:13-15 (Callahan); 6:77-78 (C. Rehm);
6:106 (Eveland); 16:26, 30 (Stough); 17:147-48 (Leib).

Well, you know, as a parent, you want to be proactive in your
child's education. I mean, obviously I'm not an educator. I have
no big degrees. I want to be proactive, but I depend on the
school district to provide the fundamentals. And I consider
evolution to be a fundamental of science. And I'm quite concerned
about a cautionary statement. I am quite concerned about this
intelligent design idea. I do think it's confusing. I don't think
it adds to his education. And at the end of the day, I mean, in
my mind, intelligent designer, I mean, the word `designer' is a
synonym for Creator, and, you know, that takes a leap of faith
for me, you know. And I think it's my privilege to guide them in
matters of faith, not a science teacher, not an administrator,
and not the Dover Area School Board.

258. Plaintiffs also testified that their children
confront challenges to their religious beliefs at school because
of the Board's actions. For example, Christy Rehm testified that
her daughter is upset by comments of other students who contend
that evolution is against their religion. 6:77-78 (Rehm).

259. Plaintiff Julie Smith explained how the
Board's action have caused conflict in her own family and
violated her religious beliefs:

Late in `04 my daughter came home from school, and I was
discussing kind of what was going on in the district with her.
And she looked at me and said, Well, Mom, evolution is a lie,
what kind of Christian are you, anyway, which I found to be very
upsetting. I asked her why she said that, and she said in school
what they had been talking about or amongst her friends and
what's going on. She seemed to be under the impression that as a
Christian, she could not believe that evolution was a science
that, you know, was true. Well, it goes against my beliefs. I
have no problems with my faith and evolution. They're not
mutually exclusive."

260. Other plaintiffs testified about discord in
the community. Joel Leib, whose family has lived in Dover for
generations, testified as follows:

"Well, it's driven a wedge where there hasn't been a wedge
before. People are afraid to talk to people for fear, and that's
happened to me. They're afraid to talk to me because I'm on the
wrong side of the fence."

261. Board members opposing the curriculum change
and its implementation have been confronted directly. Casey Brown
testified that, following her opposition to the curriculum change
on October 18, Buckingham called her an atheist and Bonsell told
her she would go to hell. 7:94-95; 8:32. Angie Yingling was
coerced into voting for the curriculum change by board members
accusing her of being an atheist and un-Christian. 15:95-97
(Sneath). Both Bryan Rehm and Fred Callahan have been confronted
in the same way. 4:93-96 (B. Rehm); 8:115-16 (F. Callahan).
Teachers have also been confronted with the same kind of
hostility. 14:34-35 (Spahr).

262. Plaintiff Fred Callahan testified that the
plaintiffs have been cast as "atheists" and intolerant" in the
Dover community, and that is the reason why he brought this
lawsuit as a plaintiff:

We've been called atheists, which we're not. I don't think
that matters to the Court, but we're not. We're said to be
intolerant of other views. Well, what am I supposed to tolerate?
A small encroachment on my First Amendment rights? Well, I'm not
going to. I think this is clear what these people have done. And
it outrages me.

263. The Board's actions from June through October
18, 2004 were consistently reported in news articles in the two
local papers, the York Daily Record and the York Dispatch.
P44/P804, P45/P805, P46/P790, P47/P791, P51/P792, P53/P793,
P54/P806, P55, P64, P682/P795, P683/P807, P679, P684/P809,
P685/P796, P678/P797, and P686.

264. In fact, most of the plaintiffs did not
attend the 2004 board meetings that preceded the curriculum
change and became aware of the Board's actions only after reading
about them in the local papers. Tammy Kitzmiller, Beth Eveland,
Cindy Sneath, Steven Stough, and Joel Leib all first learned of
the Board's actions regarding the biology curriculum and textbook
from the news articles. 3:114 (Kitzmiller); 6:93-94 (Eveland);
15:77-78 (Sneath); 15:113-14 (Stough); 17:143 (Leib). Stough
testified he read the York Daily Record and the York Dispatch
every day, including on the Internet while he was away on
vacation, to follow the Board's actions relating to the change to
the biology curriculum. 15:112-113; 16:4.

265. The news reports in the York newspapers were
followed by numerous letters to the editor and editorials
published in the same papers. Plaintiffs provided the Court with
summaries of the letters to the editor and editorials as part of
exhibits P671, P672, P674, and P675.6

266. A review of the contents of the letters to
the editor and editorials published in the York papers between
June 2004 and September 2005 demonstrates that the Dover
community perceives the Board as having acted to promote
religion, with many citizens lined up as either for the
curriculum change, on religious grounds, or against the
curriculum change, on the grounds that religion should not play a
role in public school science class.

(a) The York Daily Record published 139 letters to
the editor regarding the Board's actions. P671. Eighty-six of
those letters addressed the issues in religious terms. 16:18-20
(Stough).

(b) The York Daily Record published forty-three
editorials regarding the Board's actions. P674. Twenty-eight of
those editorials addressed the issues in religious terms.
16:22-23 (Stough).

(c) The York Dispatch published eighty-six letters
to the editor regarding the Board's actions. P672. Sixty of those
letters addressed the issues in religious terms. 16:24
(Stough).

(d) The York Dispatch published nineteen
editorials regarding the Board's actions. P675. Seventeen of
those editorials addressed the issues in religious terms. 16:25
(Stough).

267. The following excerpts are representative of
the letters to the editor in the York newspapers in favor of the
Board's actions on religious grounds:

(a) "Evolution is a theory while Christianity is
truth and fact. . . . And yes, by all means teach intelligent
design as a major part of the history of the great United States
of America." P671, No. 39.

(b) "It's high time to put God back in our lives
and inform others of what he has to offer. Try God. If you don't
like him, Satan will gladly take you back." P671, No. 48.

(c) "God gave us the Bible as a guideline to live
by, and in it, He also told us how he created the world." P672,
No. 43.

268. The following excerpts are representative of
the letters to the editor in the York newspapers opposed to the
Board's actions on the grounds that religion should not play a
role in public school science class:

(a) "Creationism and its cousin, intelligent
design, are devoid of scientific facts...a science classroom is
not the place for theology." P671, No. 6.

(b) "As a concerned student and as a concerned
human being, I say please and with all due respect, keep the
religious out of my school because it has no place in the
classroom." P671, No. 50.

(c) "God is at home. God is many places. God is
not a part of public schools." P672, No. 18.

(d) "As scientists and educators, we urge the
school board to exclude theism and the supernatural from their
science curriculum." P672, No. 25.

269. The following excerpts are representative of
the editorials in the York newspapers in favor of the Board's
actions on religious grounds:

(a) "Yes, I believe that creationism should be
taught in schools because evolution is only a theory and the
Bible is God's word which has stood the test of time." P674, No.
4.

(b) "In the meantime, we, the church will carry
the torch of faith until all the world, even science, recognizes
God as the creator of everything that is." P674, No. 30.

(c) "If intelligent design were taught: . . .
Maybe the children wouldn't mar their bodies with all kinds of
permanent markings: which by the way in the Bible, Leviticus
19:28 says, `You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for
the dead, nor (tattoo) any marks upon you; I am the Lord.'" P674,
No. 41.

270. The following excerpts are representative of
the editorials in the York newspapers opposed to the Board's
actions on the grounds that religion should not play a role in
public school science class:

(a) "The Dover school board needs to reverse the
`intelligent design' decision, or as I like to call it, `the
design your own lawsuit that will gather national media
attention, which will only hurt the children and the teachers,
just for trying to put religion into a public school' decision."
P674, No. 21.

271. Both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their
January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source
of the donation for Pandas.

(a) At his
deposition on January 3, 2005, Bonsell
failed to disclose that he had received a check from Buckingham
or that Buckingham had any involvement with collecting money to
purchase Pandas. 33:31-36, 127-33 (Bonsell). At his deposition,
when asked "who donated the books," he initially replied "I don't
know." 33:32. After follow-up questions, he supplied the name of
his father, but no one else. 33:33. Counsel then asked him "how
did you become aware that your father, as well as other
individuals, intended to donate the Pandas book to the district?"
33:33. He provided no information about a check from Buckingham.
Counsel asked him "who was the offer made to." 33:33. His answer:
"I'm not sure." 33:33. Counsel asked "you have never spoken to
anybody else who was involved with the donation?" 33:35. Answer:
"I don't know the other people." 33:35. Question: "The only
person you could have spoken to about the books was your father,
correct?" 33:35. Answer: "Yes as far as donating the books. I
guess they offered to pay for the books, and they got the books,
and they gave them to the school district." 33:35. Question:
"They offered to whom? How was the offer communicated?" 33:35.
Answer: "That's what I am saying. I am trying to think about
exactly how it was done. I don't remember exactly how it was said
or done." 33:35.

(b) This testimony was untruthful. Bonsell knew
that he had received a check from Buckingham, and yet he failed
to disclose it on January 3, despite repeated questions that
should have elicited that information. Upon questioning by the
Court, Bonsell admitted that Buckingham gave him the check to
pass to Bonsell's father and "this was money that he collected
for donations to the book." 33:127. Bonsell then admitted that he
did not tell the truth at his deposition; he claimed that he
"misspoke," but he acknowledged that he should have identified
Buckingham in response to Counsel's direct questions.
33:129.

(c) Buckingham lied at both the trial and his
deposition about the donation of Pandas. 30:38-55. He claims he
did not take up a "collection" at his church, even though he
stood in front of the pews on a Sunday before service, told the
congregation about a need for donations to purchase Pandas as a
supplemental text, and accepted donations totaling $850.
30:38-40. His refusal to admit the obvious at trial is as
untruthful as his failure to disclose the fact of the collection
at his first deposition.

(d) At his
first deposition, when asked "[d]o you
know where that came from, who donated the money," Buckingham
answered "No I don't." 30:50-51. Counsel followed up by asking:
"You have had no idea?" and Buckingham responded "I have thoughts
but I don't know." 30:50-51. Question: "What are your thoughts?"
30:51. Answer: "I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell."
30:51. Clearly Buckingham lied --he should have said he knew
that people at his church donated $850.

(e) Buckingham compounded the lie in response to
follow-up questions. He testified that although questions were
raised at a board meeting, he was not curious and did not ask
about the source. 30:51-52. Counsel then asked: "Why didn't you
ask? And he responded: Didn't want to know." Question: Why didn't
you want to know? Answer: Well, what purpose would it serve?
Question: Well, because you're a board member and the school
district is part of your responsibility and maybe where these
books came from would be something that you should know." Answer:
No, I think it was a wonderful gesture, and I didn't concern
myself with where they came from." 30:52. Again, Buckingham
clearly lied. He did not ask about the source of the donation for
Pandas because he already knew the source, not because he did not
want to know.

272. In addition to failing to tell the truth
about the source of the donation of Pandas, Bonsell failed to
tell the truth about other subjects, hid behind convenient memory
lapses and failed to admit the obvious.

(a) Bonsell failed to tell the truth about his
recollection of Charlotte Buckingham speaking at the meeting of
the Board on June 14, 2004 at his January 3 deposition. He
testified at trial that he recalled her speaking on that day,
that she went on for a great length of time, that he felt
uncomfortable gaveling her down because she was the wife of a
board member, that she probably mentioned creationism, and that
her comments were very religious in nature. 33:37 (Bonsell). And
yet, when asked at his deposition whether he recalled Charlotte
Buckingham making religious statements at the meeting, as
reported in P54, a June 15, 2004 article from the York Dispatch
by Heidi Bernhardt-Bubb, Bonsell said: "I remember Mrs.
Buckingham coming up and talking at public comment, but I don't
remember what she said." 33:38.

(b) Bonsell also failed to tell the truth about
his interest in creationism. His counsel stated during the
opening statement that Bonsell "had an interest in creationism.
He wondered whether it could be discussed in the classroom."
1:19. Yet in his testimony, Bonsell could not recall having any
interest in creationism. 33:45-48. After numerous questions, the
most he would say was that he "probably" had such an interest.
33:48.

(c) Bonsell claims not to recall raising the
subject of creationism at either the 2002 or 2003 board retreat,
even though documents show that he raised that subject. 33:44-45.
At his deposition, he insisted he never raised creationism at any
board meeting and at trial admitted that plaintiffs would have
never learned that he raised the subject at those two board
retreats if the documents had not been found. 33:53. He claimed
that "we brought these papers forward," referring to the two
board retreat documents showing the word "creationism" next to
his name in 2002 and 2003. 33:53. But he did not find those
documents; Nilsen found those documents. 33:53-54. And Nilsen
turned the documents over to counsel, who properly produced them.
33:54. Bonsell cannot claim credit in any way for candor with
respect to those documents. The fact remains that if those
documents had not been found his "interest in creationism" might
never have been discovered.

(d) Bonsell insists that he is not the board
member referred to in the Trudy Peterman memo (P26) who wanted to
teach creationism on a 50/50 basis with evolution in or around
March 2003. 33:52. And yet it is perfectly clear from the
testimony of Michael Baksa, Bertha Spahr, and Barry Callahan,
combined with P21, P25, P26, and P641, that Bonsell is the board
member who wanted to teach creationism on a 50/50 basis with
evolution in and around March 2003. See supra at ¶¶
138-43.

273. Buckingham's testimony was riddled with
inconsistencies, statements that do not ring true, and several
proven lies, in addition to the lie discussed above about the
source of the donation of Pandas.

(a) At his deposition, he initially denied that he
made the statement that the 2002 edition of Biology was "laced
with Darwinism." 29:36-37.

(b) Counsel forced him to admit that he advocated
"creationism" in a statement to a television reporter for Channel
Fox 43 in June 2004, but he continued to maintain the incredible
position that he never used that word at any board meetings.
29:95-101; P145.

(c) At trial, he admitted that he opposed the
purchase of Biology at the August 2, 2004 board meeting.
29:101-03. But at his deposition, he claimed he supported the
purchase of Biology on August 2, 2004. 29:103-04.

(d) He claimed that he had not read any of the
reports in the newspapers in June of 2004, even though both the
York Dispatch and the York Daily Record were delivered to his
door, and at one point the York Daily Record had an editorial
praising him for his forthrightness in dealing with his Oxycontin
problem and in advocating his views about creationism. 29:42,
87-89; P55.

(e) He testified that no one told him about the
contents of the articles reported in the local papers in June
2004 except to say "you're in the paper again or the Board is in
the paper again." 29:42-43. This was in conflict with his initial
deposition testimony where he testified that no one, not his
wife, his friends, or the people at his church told him what had
been reported in the papers. 29:62-63. He changed that testimony
at his second deposition to say that "people did tell me that
there were articles in the paper, but I didn't look to see them,
and I was just told that they were there." 29:63-64. In his
testimony at trial, he clarified his testimony yet again to say
"I won't say ­ people at the Church would come up and tell me
there were things in the paper, and sometimes they would blurt
out something in passing, but there was never any in depth
discussion of what's in an article. They might have just said
`hey, they have you talking about creationism again.' And we
didn't talk about that. We talked about intelligent design." But
later in his testimony, after reviewing the Fox 43 videotape
(P145) of him talking about "creationism" he blurted out the
following: "And what happened was when I was walking from my car
to the building, here's this lady and here's a camera man, and I
had on my mind all the newspaper articles saying we're talking
about creationism, and I had it in my mind to make sure, make
double sure that nobody talks about creationism, we're talking
intelligent design. I had it on my mind, I was like a deer in the
headlights of a car, and I misspoke. Pure and simple, I made a
human mistake. 29:96. (Emphasis added). Questioned further, he
admitted that he knew from talking with board members about the
reports the Board discussing creationism. 29:96-97. Buckingham's
shifting testimony on this point and his ultimate admission show
that he lied at his deposition and again at trial, most likely to
provide a rationale why he never denied all the reports in the
newspapers. The Court can and should assume that he read all the
stories in the newspapers delivered to his door and falsely
claimed that he did not read them, because he knew they were true
and he never denied them.

274. Board member Geesey also lied at trial. At
her deposition, Geesey testified that she could not recall what
theory Buckingham discussed as an alternative to evolution at the
June 7 meeting and that she did not recall discussion of the
words "intelligent design" at the June 14 meeting. 31:178-181. At
trial, she changed her story completely and claimed the Board
discussed intelligent design at the board meetings in June.
31:161.

275. As her explanation for this marked change in
testimony, Geesey claimed that review of P56, plaintiff Eveland's
letter to the editor of the York Sunday News dated June 20, 2004,
and P60, her letter to the editor of the York Sunday News dated
June 27, 2004, refreshed her recollection that the Board
discussed intelligent design at the June 2004 board meeting.
31:180, 199-201. This testimony is not credible for two reasons:
First, both letters discuss creationism, not intelligent design.
P56; P60. Geesey failed to explain how references to
"creationism" could remind her that the Board had discussed
"intelligent design." She obviously concocted this story. Second,
she reviewed P60 at her deposition in January, and was questioned
about it at that time. 31:203-204. So any claim that it
refreshed her recollection in preparation for testifying at trial
is false.

276. All of the board members who claimed that the
Board never discussed "creationism" at the June board meetings --
in the face of all the evidence to the contrary --should not be
believed on this or any other points because their testimony is
incredible. 29:68 (Buckingham); 31:152,161 (Geesey); 32:95, 100
(Bonsell); 33:53, 96-97 (Bonsell); 34:44-45 (Harkins).

(a) With the exception of Baksa, none of the
defendants' witnesses from the Board or administration admitted
the truth about the board meetings in June 2004. They claim that
the newspaper reports were false, and yet no one from the Board
or administration ever sought a retraction or denied the reports
in writing until after the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, almost
eight months later. 33:87-95 (Bonsell).

(b) The news reporters who covered the board's
meetings in the summer and fall of 2004 testified that they were
never asked for a retraction or to correct an article. 30:91-93
(Bernhard-Bubb); 31:72-73, 90 (Maldonado).

(c) If the board members or administration wanted
to contest statements in the newspapers, all they had to do was
transcribe the tapes of the meetings, which were available until
July 12, 2004, long after the newspaper reports about the
meetings on June 7 and 14. 33:106 (Bonsell); P63.

(d) The defendants cannot claim that they did not
know about the newspaper reports --Bonsell acknowledged the
reports, Buckingham admitted the Board knew of the reports, and
Nilsen admitted that he clipped and read the articles. 33:71-79
(Bonsell); 29:96-98 (Buckingham); 25:101-02 (Nilsen).

(e) Geesey took proactive measures when she
thought she had been misquoted in a news story about the board
meeting on October 18, 2004. Nilsen testified that she contacted
him the next day "immediately" upon learning of the news reports
she disputed and she asked him to develop a verbatim transcript
of the meeting to prove that she did not say what had been
reported. 24:113-14 (Nilsen); 31:172 (Geesey). The failure of any
board member to do the same with respect to the June reports
provides additional strong evidence that the news reports were
true and that the board members who at trial denied those reports
are not being truthful.

277. Bonsell, Buckingham, Harkins, and Nilsen
molded their testimony to compliment each other. As discussed
supra at 176(k), the York newspapers reported in June 2004
that Buckingham made a statement about a man dying on a cross
2,000 years ago at the June 14 board meeting. No one from the
Board or administration ever denied this statement, even though
they knew about the reports in the newspapers, until January 3,
2005, when plaintiffs took the depositions of Buckingham,
Bonsell, Harkins, and Nilsen. 33:87-95 (Bonsell). At the January
depositions, each of these witnesses testified that the statement
was made at a board meeting in the fall of 2003 or that they
could not recall when it was made. 33:96-100 (Bonsell); 29:71-72
(Buckingham); 34:94-95 (Harkins), 25:110-111 (Nilsen). At trial,
Bonsell changed his testimony on this point; at his deposition he
claimed not to be sure when Buckingham made the statement but at
trial he was certain Buckingham made it in 2003. 33:85,
97-100.

279. Bonsell, Buckingham, Harkins, and Nilsen
simply cannot be believed. Their testimony that Buckingham did
not make this statement on June 14, 2004 but instead made it in
the fall of 2003 could not be true unless two reporters for
different newspapers falsely reported that Buckingham made the
statement in June 2004 and no less than eight other witnesses --
two science teachers, two former board members, and four
plaintiffs ­ all agreed to engage in a conspiracy to
lie.

280. The evidence strongly suggests that it was
Buckingham, Bonsell, Harkins, and Nilsen who colluded on an
account that would mask the Board's religious purpose when they
met to discuss their testimony on January 2, 2005 --the night
before their depositions. 25:107 (Nilsen). Plaintiffs took those
depositions pursuant to a Court Order permitting the depositions
on an expedited basis so that plaintiffs could decide whether to
seek a temporary restraining order.

281. And when the depositions were concluded and
the plaintiffs decided that the conflicts in the factual record
prevented them from seeking a temporary restraining order, Nilsen
congratulated the board members who had testified for the "great
job" they had done testifying. 25:105-06 (Nilsen); P752. "The
ACLU is doing a great job of putting a `positive spin' on the
situation, but I cannot help but feel gratified that they could
not stop the implementation ­ and you know if they could,
they would have." P752. In other words, mission
accomplished.

282. As discussed above, Bonsell and Buckingham
clearly intended to change the biology curriculum for the purpose
of promoting religion and offering students a religious
alternative to the theory of evolution, which offends their
personal religious beliefs.

283. Indeed, Buckingham admitted that his primary
goal was to provide students with an alternative to evolution to
prevent them from accepting the theory of evolution as a fact.
29:39-40 (Buckingham). And Bonsell's concern about the teaching
of evolution caused him to raise the subject of creationism at
board retreats two years in a row and then meet with the teachers
in the fall of 2003 to make sure they were not teaching common
ancestry, a concept that offends his personal religious beliefs.
See supra at ¶¶ 135-43, 154-55.

284. As the two leaders of the Board ­ the
President and the Chair of the Board Curriculum Committee ­
Bonsell's and Buckingham's motive should be attributed to all the
Board members who supported the October 18 resolution. Several of
those board members ­ Geesey, Cleaver, and Harkins ­
apparently placed their trust completely in Bonsell and
Buckingham because they have no basis to question the theory of
evolution and they did not understand intelligent design when
they voted for it. 31:181-82 (Geesey); 32:49-50 (Cleaver);
34:117-18, 124-25 (Harkins).

285. In addition, the evidence shows that other
board members shared Buckingham's and Bonsell's religious
motivation:

(a) Geesey wrote to the editor of York Sunday News
on June 27, 2004, not to challenge the accuracy of a quotation
attributed to Buckingham that "this country was founded on
Christianity and our students should be taught as such" but to
endorse it. 31:158-60, 192-93; P60; P56. Geesey agreed with
Buckingham that "our country was founded on Christian beliefs and
principles." She confirmed the gist of the Board's debate on the
subject by also writing that the district could "teach
creationism without its being Christianity. It can be presented
as a higher power." 31:158-64 (Geesey); P60.

(b) Cleaver invited Charlotte Buckingham to a
board meeting where she (Cleaver) intended to speak in favor of
introducing prayer in schools, and Cleaver did speak in favor of
introducing prayer. C. Buckingham Dep. (4/15/05) at 11-13.

286. All of the facts about the June 2004 board
meetings prove that the board members who supported the October
18 resolution acted in a religiously-charged atmosphere for a
clearly religious purpose.

287. Several of the defendants' witnesses claimed
that the Board acted to promote good science education. And the
defendants in their summary judgment submission claimed to have
acted for a number of secular purposes. Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment at 22.

288. The defendants have never pointed to any
evidence to suggest that they ever acted for any purpose other
than the religious purpose Buckingham articulated, namely, to
provide students with a religious alternative to the theory of
evolution.

289. On the contrary, all the evidence suggests
that the Board did not have the purpose of promoting good science
education:

(a) As noted supra at 234 the Board engaged in no
discussion about the resolution or how it would promote good
science education or any other secular purpose.

(b) Other than a legal presentation by the
Discovery Institute, the Board received no information or
presentation about intelligent design. 33:112 (Bonsell); 30:23
(Buckingham).

(c) Harkins, Cleaver, and Geesey did not
understand intelligent design when they voted on it, as discussed
supra ¶¶ 235, 240-41 ­ and neither did Buckingham.
All he could say about intelligent design is that "intelligent
design teaches that something, molecules or amoeba possibly,
evolved into the complexities of life we have now." 29:11-12
(Buckingham).

(d) Neither Bonsell or Buckingham ever spoke to
the board members about why they should support the resolution.
33:112 (Bonsell); 30:23 (Buckingham).

(e) No materials were made available to the Board
to assist in its decision other than a book and a video from the
Discovery Institute and there is no evidence that any board
members reviewed them. 33:112-113 (Bonsell).

(f) No one on the Board or in the administration
ever contacted National Academy of Sciences, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science
Teachers' Association, the National Association of Biology
Teachers, or any other organization for information about
intelligent design or science education. See supra at ¶
239.

(g) Buckingham in his dealings with the Discovery
Institute and TMLC never sought any advice about science
education ­ he only sought legal advice. 29:133-34; 30:12-14
(Buckingham). This says everything about his motive and the
motive of the other board members who supported the resolution
­ if they had truly acted to promote science education there
should be some evidence they sought out scientific advice, not
legal advice, about whether intelligent design should be included
in the curriculum.

(h) The Board ignored the advice of the school
district science teachers, the Board's only resource on questions
of science education. The science teachers did not want to
mention intelligent design. 30:31-32 (Buckingham).

(i) Bonsell and Buckingham tried to hide the
source of the donation of Pandas. See supra at ¶ 271.

(j) The Board limited the teaching of evolution to
exclude common ancestry, speciation, and macroevolution, all of
which conflict with a literal reading of the Bible. See supra at
¶ 233.

290. Given the absence of any evidence that the
Board acted to promote good science education or for any other
secular purpose, and the plethora of evidence that suggests that
the Board in fact had no such secular purpose but instead
intended to promote a religious alternative to the theory of
evolution, the Court must conclude that the secular purposes
claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real
purpose, which was to promote religion.

291. While defendants asserted various alleged
interests to justify their intelligent-design policy in their
opening statement, 1:24-27, the evidence shows that the board
never discussed any interests to justify the curriculum
change.

292. Furthermore, the alleged interests justifying
the policy, identified in the opening statement, 1:24-27, were
unsupported by any testimony from experts in the field of science
education or even just general education, as defendants withdrew
both of their education experts, Warren Nord and Dick Carpenter,
during the trial.

293. Consequently, the testimony of plaintiffs'
science-education expert, Dr. Brian Alters, is unrebutted.
Additionally, Dr. Miller, as a high-school-biology-textbook
author, 1:40-47, and Dr. Padian, who has a masters in education,
taught middle-school science for three years and has worked on
California's science-curriculum standards and textbook-review
committee, 16:43-44, 59, both of whom have also been science
teachers at the university level for several decades, are
qualified by virtue of their experience in these areas to comment
on the Dover policy.

294. Dr. Brian Alters testified for plaintiffs as
an expert in the field of science education, particularly the
teaching of evolution. Dr. Alters, who has joint appointments at
McGill University and Harvard University, has published numerous
refereed articles and other writings on science education, has
extensive experience in training science educators at all levels,
has substantial responsibility for grant programs in the United
States and Canada affecting the teaching of science, and has
interviewed over a thousand high-school students to understand
the how religious views can affect science education. 14:50-68
(Alters); P182 (curriculum vitae). Dr. Alters has also authored
several textbooks about how to teach evolution at both the
college and high-school levels. 14:62-67. In short, Dr. Alters is
eminently qualified to proffer opinions on science education
generally, and more specifically about teaching evolution.

295. Pedagogy is the art and science of teaching.
14:70-71. Good pedagogy entails not promoting misconceptions.
14:71. According to Dr. Alters, "There would hardly be anything
worse for a science teacher to do than engender needless
misconceptions." Id.

(a)
undermining the status of evolutionary theory and (b) promoting
intelligent design as a scientific alternative, engender
misconceptions because both propositions are inconsistent with
the positions taken by every scientific and science-education
association in the country.

297. Dr. Alters echoed Dr. Miller's testimony that
every major scientific association opposes efforts both to
undermine evolution and to promote intelligent design as a
scientific alternative. 14:75-78.

298. Dr. Alters testified that every
science-education organization has taken a position mirroring
those of the scientific associations, namely, opposing efforts to
diminish the status of evolution and to promote intelligent
design as a scientific alternative. For example, the largest
science-teachers' organization in the country, the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA), has taken the position that
"'creation science' or related concepts, such as so-called
`intelligent design,' `abrupt appearance,' and `arguments against
evolution'" should not be taught in science class. P183;
14:90-91. Moreover, NSTA has decried efforts to "diminish" the
teaching of evolution through political and community pressure
and intimidation. P183; 14:81-85. Specifically, NSTA has stated
that requiring teachers to teach that evolution is "only a
theory" is "bad educational policy" that will cause "science
literacy itself [to] suffer." P183, at 4. The country's largest
biology-teachers' organization, the National Association of
Biology Teachers (NABT) has taken the same position. P186.
Specifically, NABT has said that "intelligent design theory" is
"outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science
curriculum." Id. Dr. Alters was unaware of any science-education
groups that support Dover's policy. 14:99. In sum, Dover's policy
finds no support among any scientific or science-education
organizations.

299. A further reflection that Dover's policy is
unsupported by the scientific or the science-education community
can be found in the fact that the only high-school biology texts
that promote teaching intelligent design are distributed by
religious publishers: the Christian Liberty University Press and
Bob Jones University Press. 14:106-107 (Alters). To his
knowledge, neither is used in any public school. Id. Dr. Alters
is not aware of any college-level biology textbook that teaches
evolution as itself controversial, or that supports the teaching
of intelligent design. Those that mention intelligent design
teach students that it is not science. 14:108-109 (Alters).

300. Contrary to defendants' claim, the
Pennsylvania academic standards for teaching science do not
support the Dover policy. The Pennsylvania standards require that
science teaching be consistent with the consensus in the
scientific community. P210; 14:102-103 (Alters). The Pennsylvania
standards treat evolution like other scientific theories, and do
not single it out for particular scrutiny or treatment as
controversial. 14:104-105 (Alters). The Pennsylvania standards do
not call for teaching intelligent design. Indeed, the standards
require that "theories and laws" must "have been verified by the
scientific community," a test that would directly prohibit
introducing intelligent design, since every scientific and
science-education organization opposes it. P210 at 4; 14:102-105
(Alters). Finally, the requirement in the standards that students
be able to "[c]ritically evaluate the status of existing
theories" does not support the Dover policy. It does not single
out evolution for special, critical treatment, and it certainly
does not promote intelligent design. 14:104-05. Consequently, the
Pennsylvania academic standards do not justify or support the
Dover policy.

301. In Dr. Alters' view, the Dover curriculum
change and the four-paragraph statement promulgated to implement
it do not promote good science education. 14:109-20. The
statement read to students singles out evolution for special and
negative treatment. It misleads students about the status of
evolution by asserting that it is not a fact and by suggesting
that evidence for evolution is controversial. Evolution is
"extraordinarily well accepted" by the scientific community,
thereby making the second paragraph misleading. Defendants
philosophy expert, Stephen Fuller, agreed that telling students
that evolution is a theory, not a fact, is "misleading." Fuller
Dep, at 111. The third paragraph implies that intelligent design
suffers from none of these deficiencies; instead, without any
reference to the consensus against teaching intelligent design in
the scientific and education community, students are referred to
Pandas, which advocates intelligent-design creationism.
14:109-117 (Alters). The curriculum and statement engender
misconceptions in students about science education and generally
misprepare students for further science education. 14:117
(Alters). The engendering of misconceptions is poor pedagogy.
14:118-19.

302. Professor Ken Miller expressed very similar
opinions about the Dover statement. As a prominent
high-school-textbook author, Dr. Miller explained that, in his
opinion, the policy misleads students about the status of
evolution as a scientific theory and that there is simply no
scientific basis for introducing students to intelligent design.
2:47-55 (Miller). It "drives a wedge" between students and the
practice of science by encouraging great skepticism about science
and scientists. 2:53-54. Similarly, Dr. Padian believes the
statement is bound to confuse students about science generally
and evolution in particular. In his blunt words, it makes them
"stupid." 17:48-52 (Padian).

303. Furthermore, the phrasing and juxtaposition
of the four paragraphs augments students' perception that
evolution is suspect and that the school endorses intelligent
design. The first paragraph tells students that they will learn
about evolution because state law mandates it. 2:47 (Miller). The
second paragraph will be interpreted as "we don't really believe
this stuff (evolution), it's a theory not a fact. There are gaps.
There's no evidence. We're very skeptical of this." Id. By
contrast, the third paragraph discussing intelligent design
contains none of the negative and denigrating language attached
to evolution, creating the impression that the school supports
it. 2:47-48. And the fourth paragraph encourages students to
discuss all this with their parents and that, by the way, they
are learning about evolution only because it is required by
Pennsylvania law. 2:48. Since the lesson on evolution is the only
time that students will hear such a disclaimer or warning, the
obvious reaction is that this subject matter is suspect. Id. Dr.
Alters advanced a similar analysis. 14:109-17.

304. More significantly, Dr. Alters and Dr. Miller
agreed that introducing intelligent design invites religion into
the science classroom. This was Dr. Alters' "biggest concern."
14:143. Introducing intelligent design sets up what will be
perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that
mentions an intelligent designer, and that other science,
evolution, that takes no position on religion. 14:144-45.
Injecting religious views into the classroom and thus encouraging
students to have to take sides about which "science" to accept is
"probably the worst thing I've heard of in science education."
14:145.

305. Dr. Miller, who in addition to his many other
accomplishments wrote the trade-publication, Find Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and
Evolution, testified that students would "get the message in a
flash. ... You got your God consistent theory, and over on the
other side, you got your atheist theory, which is evolution. It
produces a false duality. And it tells students ... quite
explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or
choose atheism on the side of science." 2:54-55. Introducing such
a religious conflict into the classroom is "very dangerous"
because it forces students to "choose between God and science,"
not a choice schools should be foisting on students. 2:55.

306. Dr. Padian raised other potential religious
implications attending the introduction of intelligent design to
students. Students are likely to ask whether the inability of
animals to evolve naturally points to the imperfection of the
creator. 17:50. What does it say about the Creator's ability to
intervene in natural processes, and if he (or she or they or it)
has that capability why don't they intervene more often to
alleviate pain and suffering in the world. Id. In other words,
intelligent design invites theological questions, something which
is inappropriate for a science class. 17:51.

307. Dr. Alters rejects Dover's explanation that
its curriculum change and the statement implementing it are not
teaching. He finds, to the contrary, that substantive
misconceptions about the nature of science, evolution, and
intelligent design are conveyed to students; in his words, the
statement "facilitates learning." 14:120-123 (Alters). The
statement is a "mini lecture," that may not be good teaching, but
is nonetheless a form of teaching. 15:57-59.

308. According to Dr. Alters, the circumstances
surrounding the introduction of the evolution unit in ninth grade
biology, including the reading of the statement by an
administrator, the opportunity that students have to opt-out of
hearing that reading, and the text of the statement itself, all
heighten the students' learning that evolution is controversial
and that intelligent design is being promoted by the district.
14:123-125.

309. Dr. Alters also testified that the school's
ban on any discussion of intelligent design, beyond the reading
of the statement, by students and teachers gives students the
impression that intelligent design is a "secret science." 14:126.
Pedagogically, introducing students to a concept and then
prohibiting discussion about it is "absurd." 14:127. Defendants'
philosophy (but not education) expert, Stephen Fuller, agreed
that the ban on discussion undermines the Dover policy's
pedagogical value. 28:14.

310. In Dr. Alters' view, the curriculum change
and its implementation do not enhance critical thinking, but
rather stifle it. 14:127-129 (Alters). It confuses students and
engenders misconceptions about the very nature of science.
14:127-32, 142-43.

311. In light of the defendants' failure to
present any evidence by Dover officials identifying a secular
justification for the policy beyond just "balance the teaching of
evolution," and the absence of any expert testimony rebutting
plaintiffs' science-education experts who condemned the policy as
indefensible from either a scientific or pedagogical perspective,
this Court finds that the defendants did not have a valid secular
purpose for the intelligent-design policy.

313. Intelligent design promotes the religious
belief that a supernatural actor intervened in natural history
and acted directly to design and create living things.

314. Intelligent design is not only religious, it
is sectarian. It promotes the particular religious views held by
some but not all believers in Christianity.

315. Intelligent design is a form of creationism,
but one that does not expressly identify the designer and creator
of living things as the God of the Bible. By description, if not
label, however, the intelligent designer ­ also referred to
by intelligent-design proponents as the intelligent agent,
intelligent actor, master intellect ­ is obviously God.

316. The textbook Of Pandas and People was
prepared as a creationist textbook. In drafts of the book, the
words "intelligent design" were inserted in place of "creation"
and its cognates in numerous places throughout the text following
the Supreme Court's 1987 decision in Edwards v. Aguillard,
without any meaningful change in content.

317. Intelligent design is part of a national
religious and cultural-renewal strategy, as evidenced by the
Wedge Document and statements by leaders of the
intelligent-design movement, such as Phillip Johnson and William
Dembski.

318. Intelligent design posits a supernatural
actor as the source of life and the complexity of biological
life.

319. Intelligent design does not qualify as
science for a variety of reasons:

(a) It violates the ground rules of science, as
they have been practiced for hundreds of years since the
scientific revolution, because it i) posits a supernatural actor
as an explanation for natural phenomena and ii) it cannot be
tested.

(b) It has been universally rejected as science by
the scientific community.

(g) The arguments made against evolution distort
and misrepresent the real state of scientific knowledge.

320. Intelligent-design proponents seek to advance
intelligent design not to explain the natural world, but as a
means of challenging accepted scientific knowledge that they
believe conflicts with their religious values.

321. Board members expressed a desire to teach
creationism in science class as an alternative to the scientific
theory of evolution on numerous occasions, including public
meetings in June 2004.

322. Statements attributed to board members and
administrators in June 2004 by the York Dispatch and York Daily
Record were in fact said by those board members and
administrators, as reported.

323. Witnesses who testified on behalf of the
defendants did not testify truthfully or accurately about the
June 2004 school board meetings and about other events,
statements, and circumstances relating to the change to the
biology curriculum.

324. The lack of truthfulness by some witnesses
for the defendants, including board members, demonstrates an
intent to conceal an improper religious purpose.

325. Board members who supported the October 18,
2004 board resolution to change the biology curriculum and the
February 2005 newsletter wanted to promote to students at Dover
High School and throughout the Dover community a religious
alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

326. Board members ensured that the teaching of
evolution at Dover High School would be limited to propositions
that did not conflict with their religious beliefs, and prevented
the teaching of key aspects of the theory that did conflict with
their religious beliefs, such as macroevolution, speciation, and
common ancestry.

327. Board members who supported the October 18,
2004 resolution and the February 2005 newsletter sought to
denigrate the scientific theory of evolution and promote
intelligent design as an alternative because evolution conflicts
with their personal religious beliefs.

328. The Board had no secular purpose for changing
the biology curriculum.

329. There can be no secular purpose for promoting
a religious, non-scientific proposition like intelligent
design.

330. Prior to passage of the October 18, 2004
resolution, the Board did not discuss the substance of
intelligent design or how promoting it and denigrating the
scientific theory of evolution would promote good science
education or any other secular purpose.

331. The secular purpose(s) advanced by defendants'
counsel as the supposed grounds for the Board's actions are not
supported by the evidence and constitutes a pretext to mask the
Board's religious purpose.

332. Prior to passage of the October 18, 2004
resolution, the Board did not engage in any investigation or ask
any questions that would be expected if its purpose was to
improve science education, but instead it rejected the strongly-
held views of the district's science teachers, did not consult
any other persons with expertise in science education, and relied
solely on legal advice from two organizations with religious,
cultural, and legal missions, i.e., the Discovery Institute and
the Thomas More Law Center.

334. A reasonable objective observer would
perceive the intelligent designer of the intelligent-design
movement to be God.

335. A reasonable objective observer would
perceive intelligent design as the most recent manifestation of
creationism.

336. A reasonable objective observer would
perceive that the Dover Area School District Board of Directors
devised its intelligent-design policy, including the change to
the biology curriculum, the four-paragraph statement read to
students and the newsletter sent to the entire Dover community,
because it had religious objections to the scientific theory of
evolution and wanted to provide students with a religious, or
"God-friendly" alternative.

337. A reasonable objective observer would
perceive intelligent design, as described in Of Pandas and People
and the February 2005 newsletter published by the Board, as
referring to God and promoting a particular religious view.

338. A reasonable objective observer would
perceive the statement read to students in biology class about
intelligent design as religious because the science teachers will
not read the statement on ethical grounds, students are told
intelligent design should be pursued at home, and the students
are not permitted to ask questions about intelligent design or
discuss it in class.

339. A reasonable objective observer would
perceive Of Pandas and People to be a creationist textbook.

340. The change to the biology curriculum, and the
statement read to students, do not enhance science education,
and, in fact, harms science education by about how science works,
about the status of evolution in the scientific community, and by
teaching them that the religious argument of intelligent design
is scientific.

341. The change to the biology curriculum harms
students by placing science education and scientific knowledge in
conflict with religious beliefs.

342. The change in biology curriculum harms
students by favoring a particular religious viewpoint, with which
some students and their families may disagree.

343. The defendants' actions have had a divisive
effect on the Dover community, with many members taking sides in
favor of or in opposition to the Board's actions because they
either favor or opposed religion in public schools.

344. The plaintiffs, parents of children in the
Dover schools, have been harmed by the Board's actions because
they interfere or threatens to interfere with their right to
instruct their children on matters of faith and religion and
because they have been cast as outsiders in the Dover community
because they oppose the Board's actions.

347. The curriculum change adopted by defendants
endorses religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.

348. Defendants' purpose in adopting the
curriculum change was to introduce a religious view of biological
origins into the biology course, in violation of the
Establishment Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Art. I, Sec. 3
of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

349. The effect of the defendants' actions in
adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of
biological origins into the biology course, and broadcast that
view to the Dover community in violation of the Establishment
Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Art. I, Sec 3 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.

350. So-called "intelligent design" is merely a
sanitized version of "creationism" or "creation science," and as
such may not be taught in public schools, consistent with the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Art. I, Sec. 3 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution.

351. In order to preserve the separation of church
and state mandated by the Establishment Clause, and Art. I, Sec.
3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is necessary and
appropriate to enter an order enjoining defendants from
implementing their biology curriculum change, from requiring
teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of
evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to an alternative
theory known as "intelligent design." It is also necessary and
appropriate to issue a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs'
rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by defendants'
actions.

352. The actions of the defendants in violation of
Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the
Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
subjects defendants to liability not only with respect to
injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages
and the reasonable value of plaintiffs' attorneys' services and
costs incurred in vindicating plaintiffs' constitutional
rights.

5During her testimony, Cleaver consistently referred to the concept as
"intelligence design" although the trial transcript records her as saying "intelligent
design." See e.g., 32:17 (Cleaver). [Return]

6The letters to the editor and editorials that are exhibits P671, P672, P674,
and P675 are relevant to show that the effect of the Board's actions is the
promotion or endorsement of religion and thus they should be admitted into
evidence for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum of Law in Support of
Admissibility of Editorials and Letters to the Editor in the York Daily Record and
York Dispatch From the Period June 1, 2004 Â­ September 1, 2005, which was filed
on October 28, 2005. [Return]